Like it or not, we are living through cataclysmic change. These three videos highlight that — and I’ve added a few thoughts about slavery of body and mind.

Three videos will make you think about the seas changes happening before us. The first sees Thomas Sowell talk briefly about the endless dependency Democrats in America have foisted on American blacks:

“Dependence was seen as the key to holding the slaves down. It’s ironic that same principle comes up in the welfare state a hundred years later.” pic.twitter.com/bTjGBd6Ylt

Charlotte Brontë would have forgiven Trump his Stormy Daniels’ sins, because she separated an individual’s personal sins from the way they treated others.

In the wake of the Anderson Cooper/60 Minutes‘ interview with Stormy Daniels, there’s been something of a war raging (albeit politely) between Dennis Prager and Jonah Goldberg. The issue is whether it should matter to conservatives that President Trump was not a Boy Scout in the years leading up to his presidency — and, indeed, did something as morally reprehensible as having a one-night fling with a porn star immediately after his son’s birth.

Dennis Prager wrote a column saying that Trump’s personal behavior — which is a black mark on his soul and an insult to his wife — should not matter, because we are not Trump’s soul nor his wife. Instead, we are the citizens of the nation he is leading and in that capacity, his presidency is moral because it stands up to evil and does what is right:

I do not agree with those — right or left, religious or secular — who contend that adultery invalidates a political or social leader. It may invalidate a pastor, priest or rabbi — because a major part of their vocation is to be a moral/religious model, and because clergy do not make war, sign national budgets, appoint judges, run foreign policy or serve as commanders in chief. In other words, unlike your clergyman or clergywoman, almost everything a president does as president affects hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of non-Americans. If a president is also a moral model, that is a wonderful bonus. But that is not part of a president’s job description.

[snip]

The second problem with the adultery-matters-in-a-political-leader argument is that the policies of a political leader matter much more — morally — than that individual’s sexual sins, or even character. It is truly foolish to argue otherwise. Would we rather have as president a person with racist views who otherwise had an exemplary personal character or a believer in racial equality who committed adultery?

[snip]

The fact is it is none of my business and none of my concern whether a politician ever had an extramarital affair. To cite just one of many examples, a president’s attitude toward the genocide-advocating Islamic tyrants in Tehran is incomparably more morally significant. That is just one of many reasons — on moral grounds alone — I far prefer the current president to the faithful-to-his-wife previous president.

Jonah Goldberg, who cannot get past his deep distaste for Trump’s personality and his deviations from doctrinaire 21st century Republican conservativism, thinks that the Stormy Daniels matter (and others like) it are such black marks against Trump that we Americans become complicit in his sins when we support his politics. For that reason, in a post about secularism and conservativism, he essentially accuses Prager and other religious people who support Trump of being unfaithful to their faith: [Read more…]

A romance novel explains why Trump is destroying the media and a Jewish survival doctrine provides a road map for conservatives who want to win.

These are strange times and I sometimes have a strange brain. That may explain why, in the days since the Alabama election, when I read about Trump’s clashes with the media or see the #NeverTrumpers willing to sacrifice America to their principles, some pretty strange analogies — analogies about romance novels and rabbinical rules — pop into my head. Let me explain:

Writing at the L.A. Times, Matt Welch discusses the fact that conservatives feel strongly that, in the many elections held since (and including) the presidential election 2016, the really big loser has consistently been the American media:

“Roy Moore Proves Media Only Destroys Itself in Elections” ran a headline Monday in The American Spectator. “The late Charles Manson seems to have gotten a more sympathetic press” than Republican Roy Moore, complained former human events editor Allan H. Ryskind in the Washington Times. “The real reason for a situation that allows the Roy Moores and Donald Trumps of the world to rise above mere laughingstock status,” opined former George W. Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer in Politico, “is that the media has totally lost its connection with a large portion of the nation.”

Meanwhile, the media’s been congratulating itself on scoring a victory in Alabama. Welch is intrigued by this disconnect, which he chalks up to insider and outsider criticism:

All political media criticism — whether it was the more left-leaning alternative and New Journalism of the ’60s and ’70s, the right-leaning AM radio revolution of the ’80s and ’90s or the social media cacophony we see today — begins as a necessary and bracing reminder to the big media fish that they, too, swim in water, even if they don’t feel it.

But soon, the outsider critique brushes up against the first iron law of media criticism: Partisan skepticism inevitably drifts toward media illiteracy. What starts out as a tool for more sophisticated news consumption eventually degrades into an excuse for those who choose not to believe inconvenient journalism.

Welch’s report triggered a slightly different train of thought in my brain: Trump is extraordinarily adept at baiting the media into intemperate behavior that shows the media at its worst — even if there’s some underlying virtue underlying the media’s position. And what does this remind me of? A Georgette Heyer novel, of course.

The novel, one of my favorites, is The Nonesuch. The book’s plot is the usual comedy of manners that Heyer handles with a touch as deft as Jane Austen’s, tempered only by a more modern sensibility. Here’s the quick rundown:

Ancilla is an intelligent, accomplished young gentlewoman with a strong sense of self worth and a good sense of humor (making her more empowered than the American women born of the Women’s Liberation Movement). Owing to her family’s impoverishment, instead of becoming a charge on her family, she’s chosen to work as a governess. Ancilla has two charges: her employer’s daughter and her employer’s niece. The niece, Tiffany, is an extremely wealthy, staggeringly beautiful, selfish young woman who is charming when happy and a termagant when crossed. It takes very little to cross Tiffany.

Sir Waldo Hawkridge comes into the town to set up an orphanage, as he is charitably inclined. He’s quite modest, so he keeps secret the reason for his coming. The gentry in the town have no interest, in any event, in exploring his motives for visiting. He is “The Nonesuch,” meaning that, when it comes to looks, wealth, athletic ability, and charm, there is none such as Sir Waldo. The only person unimpressed is Ancilla, who erroneously believes him to be a dissolute gambler, which he is not. The meat of this delightful story involves Sir Waldo’s efforts to woo Ancilla.

One of the engines driving the romance is the fact that Sir Waldo’s cousin Lord Lindethl a sweet-natured young man, has accompanied him. Unfortunately, Lord Lindeth spots Tiffany in a charming moment and falls head over heels in love with her. Both Ancilla and Sir Waldo wish to nip this passion in the bud, because both understand that Tiffany is poison for any man unlucky enough to marry her, notwithstanding her wealth and beauty.

Of course, the easiest way to end the affair is for Tiffany to show her worst side to Lindeth. Ancilla, though, struggles with this notion. On the one hand, she wants to save Lindeth from a terrible fate; on the other hand, Tiffany is in her charge and it goes against the grain for her to encourage bad behavior. Fortunately, Sir Waldo has no such constraints . . . and this is the point at which I finally bring the story back to Donald Trump.

Sir Waldo deliberately baits Tiffany by “sort of” flirting with her, which is very bad behavior coming from an older man of the “ton” (i.e., Britain’s uppermost class). Not only that, he blows hot and cold, alternately plying her with fulsome compliments and dismissing her with subtle, but vicious, put-downs. Tiffany, unaccustomed to being played, cannot control herself. She becomes both vicious and hysterical, even though it should be obvious to her that she is shattering her reputation in the eyes of the young men around her, including Lindeth.

Trump, believe it or not, rude, crude, Trump, is playing the role of handsome, suave, talented Sir Waldo. Those who are not blinded by hate know that Trump, a savvy businessman and reality-TV star, is perfectly capable of controlling himself if he wishes. When it comes to the media, that’s not his wish. [Read more…]

Progressives again show their retreat from reality, this time with a t-shirt claiming MAGA supporters, whose candidate and agenda won, are “losers.”

During the 2016 Presidential campaign, Donald Trump had promised “We will have so much winning if I get elected that you may get bored with the winning.” The MAGA team believed him and he turned the electoral map red everywhere except in coastal areas and large urban enclaves.

True to Trump’s promise, while his administration has made some errors (President Trump should have fired Comey and indicted Hillary on January 22), there’s also been a whole lot of winning. Here’s a partial list:

The Trump administration’s ability to block terror exporting nations from sending people to America is a win.

ICE’s stepped-up actions and the diminution in the flow of illegal aliens to the US are ongoing wins.

I don’t think any of the MAGA crowd are bored yet with this winning. They’re counting on more. The reality is that, with Trump slowly but steadily dismantling the Obama state, his MAGA supporters are very pleased. Moreover, as the guys at Power Line show (especially Paul Mirengoff), even those who did not vote for Trump, and are not true MAGA-ites, are pleased. It’s been a delight to watch the more reasonable NeverTrumpers come around.

It’s also been pretty darn pleasing watching the new converts talk to those who have walled themselves off in NeverTrump Land (a cold, dank, hopeless, ugly place). What they’re saying is that the obdurate NeverTrumpers have become intellectually dishonest and are making themselves pariahs to all thinking conservatives.

With all this MAGA winning in mind, how in the world does one explain this t-shirt? [Read more…]

Impeachment is a Progressive, GOP, #NeverTrump pipe dream. On known facts, there’s no basis, so here’s a slap in the face to snap you out of your fear.

I see it all over my Facebook feed: triumphant Leftists, certain that we’re on the verge of impeaching Trump and weak-kneed conservatives, egged on by ever-hostile #NeverTrumpers, certain that the Progressives are correct and that it’s all over now. Well it’s not all over.

The only reason Progressives think they’re in the catbird seat is that Trump voters are allowing the media to live in their heads. As for #NeverTrumpers, I suspect that they imagine a halcyon future in which a dignified, refined President Pence presides over a dignified, refined Republican golden age. As if!

I don’t care how wonderful Pence is (and I think he’s awesome). The reality is that, if the Democrats can bring Trump down, no Republican will ever again be allowed to occupy the White House. If Trump goes on the shoddy, fake grounds currently asserted, so goes our republic.

Russia? So what if people, including Trump people, talked to Russia? Russia may be a geopolitical foe in the larger sense, something that’s theoretically true for every nation in the world, but during the entire Obama administration, Russia was not the enemy. Remember this? [Read more…]

Digging into the known facts about Trump’s alleged leak of classified information, shows media bias and hints that the Deep State is spying on Trump.

I always wait 24 hours before commenting on the Left’s latest bout of hysteria because, since Trump became president, those hysterical outbursts are invariably wrong. In the case of Trump’s alleged spillage of classified information to the Russians, everything reported has been wrong or is highly suspect in that it shows a concerted inside effort to destroy the presidency. Here’s my take on what happened:

President Trump, General McMaster, and Secretary of State Tillerson met in the Oval Office with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The Oval Office is supposed to be a secured room, but that’s becoming doubtful.

During the meeting, which covered the two country’s shared concerns about ISIS and other Islamic radicals, Trump told the Russians that there was information on the ground that was favorable to us. Both McMaster and Tillerson, who were present at the meeting, strenuously contend that Trump did not relay any highly classified information.

However, even if Trump had chosen to report classified information, that would have been within his purview as the Chief Executive Officer in charge of America’s intelligence apparatus. That is, the President, not the intelligence agencies (and not a certain former Secretary of State), gets to decide what’s classified information and what’s not.

Within a short time of the meeting’s conclusion, and right in time for the Washington Post’s 5:00 afternoon deadline, people who were not present at the meeting got in touch with the WaPo. These unnamed people are allegedly former intelligence officers, which means that they worked for Obama and probably do not hold current security clearance, and current intelligence officers, who almost certainly were hired during the Obama era and whose status regarding classified material is unknown. [Read more…]

I’m sitting here in a glorious post-SOTU haze, thinking about the crazy world in which we live and hoping that Trump can find the path to fix it.

I’m working on a project that will, I hope, come as a pleasant surprise to many of you. In the meantime, here’s a quick round-up of cool links with facts that are useful in our bright new world, just one day after President Trump gave that stellar, even Reagan-esque State of the Union address.

A few last words about that wonderful SOTU. I was going to quote my favorite lines — and then I realized that I liked so many, there would be no room left for anything else in this post. I’ll just say again that it was a really wonderful speech — and the Progressives on my real-me Facebook feed have been left gratifyingly speechless. Since I cannot reduce my admiration to a manageable size, I simply recommend that you read Daniel Greenfield’s admiration.

As for me, rather than comment on a specific line or policy, I’d like to piggy-back on Greenfield’s point about hope’s return. Obama ran on “hope,” but all he offered was divisiveness and disdain. Trump truly loves this country and loves Americans — and people are picking up on that.

Trump is not only a patriot and an optimist, he’s also a futurist, in the old-fashioned Disney mold. Walt Disney, despite the Cold War, was incredibly optimistic about America’s boundless future, something I wrote about here. Trump reminded me of that. Here are a couple of videos for those of you who aren’t familiar with Disney’s Carousel of Progress animatronic show which is, to my mind, the most tangible representation of Disney’s awe about America’s past and faith in her future.

Creating a Chelsea Clinton. I’ve sort of been boycotting Commentary Magazine since John Podhoretz, the editor in chief, shot far beyond condescending #NeverTrump and landed squarely in nasty, vicious #NeverTrump. The other Commentary writers followed his #NeverTrump lead, although they never got aggressive about it.

Still, now that the dust is settling, there are still good things to be found at this venerable, thoughtful conservative magazine. For example, Noah Rothman has written a simply splendid take-down of the vapid, spoiled, meaninglessly ambitious Chelsea Clinton. If you want a good laugh, even if you worry that the Clinton tentacles might still have some life left in them, do read it.

The despicable media and Trump’s message. In an effort to keep people who identify themselves as #NeverTrump from turning their focus to Hillary, an action that instantly turns most people into #NeverHillary voters, the despicable media is currently ignoring entirely the substance of Trump’s important speech yesterday. As Roger Simon says, if Americans actually knew the promises Trump made and the policies he intends to pursue, they would vote for him by a huge majority:

That speech put forth some of the more intelligent and creative ideas to be before the American public in years. These proposals, contained in what Trump calls his “Contract with the American Voter,” deserve to be heard and seriously debated in these last weeks before the election.

Undoubtedly the Newswoisie will do their best to squelch them, panicked that some innocent citizen might deign to compare Trump’s “Contract” to the unremitting banality and moral vacuousness (“please see my website”) of the Hillary Clinton campaign. But it is our duty — all of us — to expose this “Contract” to as many people as possible and give the American public a chance to consider it, even if their so-called “thought leaders” do their best to obscure it.

For those who believed the media when it said “Nothing to see here” lie and therefore missed what Trump said, here’s a Trump-Pence poster summarizing the gist of his speech:

Today Trump went to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and delivered a major, substantive speech, outlining what he proposes to do in the first 100 days of his administration. This is the kind of thing that must be kept secret–marked with a “c” perhaps–lest voters be reminded that they actually agree with the reviled Republican nominee. Let’s not take any chances!

How did the liberal press suppress information about Trump’s proposals? They buried the lede. This is how the Associated Press reported on Trump’s effort to shift the focus to the issues:

The media’s tactic is working with the usual suspects (i.e., the Progressive friend who make up my real-me world). Looking to me like idiots, but thinking themselves very clever, they’ve peppered their Facebook pages with posts about Trump’s women problem, but don’t have a single post addressing (even to attack) his substantive points. I actually asked a group of Lefties on Facebook gloating about Trump’s stupidity if they weren’t troubled by the fact that the media buried the substance in favor of something like that — and was greeted with silence (a silence, I’m sure, that was smug not shame-faced.)

As part of its perfidy, the media is giving time to every two-bit liar who comes along claiming that Trump did something sexually wrong to her. (It’s like the “sexism” version of the “racism” stories in 2008 and 2012 that were used to destroy Obama’s opponents.) Real investigation, of the type the media refuses to do, has revealed that, as is true for the others, the most recent accuser is a hard-core Democrat activist. One of the new media outlets revealing this fact added a useful point:

Rumors are circulating that the Democrats are frantically looking for a way to displace Hillary from the top of their ticket. That assumes, of course, that it’s even possible to do so at this late date, with states already having locked in the primary winners. The obvious people to fill Hillary’s spot are Joe Biden (feckless), Bernie Sanders (hypocritical), and Tim Kaine (a hard-Left nonentity), with Sanders being the only one who has some legitimacy, given his second place finish in the primaries. Sanders, because of his rabid base, and Biden and Kaine, because of their lack of scandals, all have the ability to defeat Trump.

What concerns me is that if the Democrats succeed in their machinations, Sanders, thanks to his rabid base, and Biden and Kaine, because of their lack of scandals, all have the ability to defeat Trump. Hillary, however, may forever have lost that ability — at least that’s what the prescient Scott Adams thinks. In addition, Hillary is hampered by the mounting evidence of Borgia-esque corruption and the constant threat that Wikileaks or some other entity will release embarrassing material.

Once I started thinking about Hillary replacements who may be more successful than Hillary, I arrived at a surprising conclusion: I no longer just want Hillary to lose; I want Trump to win. Having adjusted to Trump, and having seen his remarkably quick learning curve and his willingness to cater to hot-button conservative issues (e.g., Supreme Court, radical Islam, illegal immigration), I’m beginning to think that he might be a decent president.

One of the main reasons I’m almost craving a Trump presidency is because of his catch-line on The Apprentice:

“You’re fired” — powerful words and words that career politicians avoid like the plague.

The older of my two dogs is very high-strung and she got so frightened by the wind that carried the fog in tonight that I’ve had to sequester her and me in my home office so that Mr. Bookworm, who needs to get up for work tomorrow, can sleep. She shows no signs of settling, so I’m blogging.

No matter how you slice it, Trump is the less risky gamble. Writing in the Claremont Review of Books, Publius Decius Mus quite graphically presents the issue that I have been arguing all summer:

2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.

Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.

Precisely. Trump, with all his flaws, is better than Hillary. Up until a few months ago, one could argue that Hillary is just another garden-variety Leftist and that the American republic will survive despite her.

That’s all changed now. Knowing as we do of her extraordinary corruption — whether in running the State Department as a Pay-for-Play profit center for herself, her husband, and her daughter, or deliberately exposing all of America’s state secrets to try to hide her gross malfeasance — electing her to the presidency means that America has fully embraced banana republic status.

In the wake of a Hillary victory, thanks to Comey and the American voters (including all those #NeverTrumpers), there will no longer be a rule of law in America that applies equally to all citizens. We will in one fell swoop have destroyed a legal system that goes back 1215 when England first put into writing in the Magna Carta a policy saying that no one, not even a king, is above the law. As of now, Hillary and her cronies are above the law and it will be a disaster if the American people put their imprimatur on that utterly corrupt, anti-democratic principle.

One more thing: As Publius Decius Mus explains, Hillary’s been wrong about every single policy stance she’s ever taken (including the ones where she’s changed her stance repeatedly according to the latest poll data), while Trump, in his fumbling, bumbling way, has been right about all of the most important policy issues facing America. So maybe he’s not so bad after all.

I’m always pleased when my thoughts align with Dennis Prager’s. It makes me feel as if I’m on the right track. With regard to #NeverTrump versus #NeverHillary, Prager takes the latter position and cogently (and with due respect for the #NeverTrump cadre) explains why:

All Never Trump conservatives maintain that their decision to never vote for Donald Trump is guided by their principles. I have no doubt that this is true.

But some of them — though by no means all — seem to imply, or at least may think, that conservatives who vote for Trump have abandoned their principles. Indeed, the charge of compromising on principle is explicitly leveled at Republican politicians and members of the Republican “establishment” who support Trump.

I cannot speak for all conservatives who are voting for Trump, but I can speak for many in making this assertion:

We have the same principles as the Never Trumpers — especially those of us who strongly opposed nominating Trump; that’s why we opposed him, after all. So almost everything that prevents Never Trumpers from voting for Trump also troubled us about the candidate. (I should note that some are less troubled today.)

So where do we differ?

We differ on this: We hold that defeating Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, and the Left is also a principle. And that it is the greater principle.

Obviously, the Never Trumpers do not believe that. On the contrary, some of the most thoughtful Never Trumpers repeatedly tell us that the nation can survive four years of Hillary Clinton–Democrat rule. And then, they say, conservatism will have cleansed itself and be able to take back the nation after four calamitous years of a Hillary Clinton presidency — whereas if Trump wins, he will be the de facto face of conservatism, and then conservatism will have been dealt a potentially fatal setback.

This argument assumes that America can survive another four years of Democratic rule.

So, it really depends on what “survive” means. If it means that there will be a country called the United States of America after another four years of a Democratic presidency and a left-wing Supreme Court for quite possibly another four decades (as well as dozens of lifetime appointments to the equally important lower federal courts), the country will surely survive.

But I do not believe that the country will surely survive as the country it was founded to be. In that regard we are at the most perilous tipping point of American history.

Prager perfectly articulates my concerns. Again, I urge people who are still #NeverTrumpers to re-think whether this is the year to “take a principled stand,” or whether the greater principle is to save our nation from the utterly pernicious effects of 12 to 16 years of hard Left political rule (and corruption, don’t forget corruption).

Hillary’s cough has sounded awfully familiar to me — and today I finally figured out what Hillary’s endless coughing jags bring to mind. To back up a minute, though. . . .

As anyone following the news knows, Hillary’s been coughing a lot . . . an awful lot. Just today, while campaigning in Cleveland, Hillary practically coughed a lung out. Moreover, she was rude enough to cough into her hand, which has been de trop ever since the swine floor, rather than her elbow, the more socially acceptable way to cough:

Watching Hillary hack away, I finally figured out where I’ve heard that cough before. Think back, way back, to the Ernie Kovacs Show. I’m too young to have watched it in its first iteration, but I did see it when it was replayed on PBS back in the 1970s. One of the images that stayed with me was Kovacs’ character “Eugene,” who brings sound effects to everything he does. Near the end of a sketch, he checks out the books on a shelf, with one of those books being Camille (the English translation of Alexander Dumas fils’ La Dame aux Camélias). I’ve queued the following clip to the correct moment, but if it doesn’t start correctly, go to 9:51.

Yup. Hillary sounds exactly like the consumptive prostitute coughing in Ernie Kovacs’ comedic moment. I won’t draw any analogies, although I can’t help but add that the prostitute in Camille was surprisingly virtuous, ending any actual comparison with Hillary. What I will say is that I’m glad to have chased down the fugitive memory that was haunting me every time I heard Hillary hack.

In the past couple of weeks, two superb essays came out castigating conservatives who are going to do anything but vote for Donald Trump, whether that means voting for Hillary, Johnson (a closet Democrat who’s been Hillary’s echo chamber), or what’s his name the Mormon. For me, the bottom line is that Hillary will absolutely most certainly totally be a president who cements Obama’s legacy, whether it’s executive overreach, hard-Left legislation from the Supreme Court, an open border ensuring permanent Leftist domination at the polls, crony capitalism, or America’s dhimmitude before Islam.

I did read about it, however, and I came away with the impression that it was a blessing that so many turncoat GOP operatives stayed away. Frankly, operatives are dull. Instead, this convention put up real people, with real concerns.

Also, the Melania “plagiarism” is a tempest in a teapot. The only thing it’s good for is giving Leftist something to say. Their problem with last night’s convention is that, other than Melania’s borrowed phrases (something everyone in politics does, Joe Biden more than most), there’s nothing they can point out without making themselves look like racists, cop haters, law-breakers, or America haters. Put another way, if the only thing that Lefties can pick on is five or six borrowed phrases, it was a staggeringly successful first night.

You’re not a fascist demagogue if you’re arguing for a return to the status quo of 2006 or so. Victor Davis Hanson made an excellent point at the top of his list at National Review (a #NeverTrump bastion) detailing the ten reasons Trump might win:

The coup that wasn’t and the coup that could be. The more news that comes out of Turkey, the more I believe that what happened there was a coup in the same way that the Reichstag fire was a “coup” — it was a staged event that gave a despot the authority to wipe out the last of his opposition. I have no doubt that the soldiers who will be executed believed in what they were doing, but I also have no doubt that they were pushed into it like lambs to the slaughter by people on Erdogan’s payroll.

What made the coup an inevitable failure is that Erdogan spent years purging the military of secular leaders and replacing them with leaders sympathetic to his own political philosophy. We have a similar situation here at home.

Obama has spent years purging the American military of conservative leaders and replacing them with leaders who believe that the military’s primary goal isn’t defending America against her enemies but is, instead, to use it as a vehicle to promote the so-called “war against climate change” and gender madness, both to the detriment of military readiness. Meanwhile, on the home front, Obama has armed the federal civil service (a bastion of Left-leaning union members who had no problem using the IRS’s vast powers to silence conservatives in an election year) to the point at which they’re more heavily weaponized than the Marines. The only difference between a weaponized IRS, EPA, FCC, or FDA, on the one hand, and the Marines, on the other hand, is that I’d still bet my money on the Marines in hand-to-hand fighting.

A lot of people worry that, if Trump is rising in the polls, Obama will declare martial law at the end of October, either because of another terrorist attack by a member of the religion of “peace” or because of more outrages by the BLM movement. Two years ago, I would have scoffed. Today, I agree that this scenario is within the realm of possibility.

However, if Hillary is ahead in the polls, the election will go forward, and we’ll end up with the most corrupt woman in American political history having at her command an emasculated, left-Leaning military and a heavily armed bureaucracy at her beck and call. And honestly, if the next president has that kind of firepower, ask yourself this: Would you rather have Trump, who does love America, or Hillary, a hard-core Leftist, in control of that arsenal?

The best thing, of course, would be seeing the military return to its proper function and disarming our “civil” bureaucracy. That’s not going to happen soon, though, so we’ve got to go with what is, rather than what we wish could be.